Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Natasha Sood – Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh Administration and Others – Respondent
CWP No. 2785 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-09-2015
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women - Act of 2005 - Section 12, 19, 20, 23, 31; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 21, 22 - Major Harmohinder Singh's case - Suman's case
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a married woman, filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act of 2005) alleging harassment by her husband and in-laws for bringing less dowry. She also filed an application for interim relief under Section 23 of the Act. Respondents No. 5 and 6 filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act of 2007) levelling allegations against the petitioner and directing her to leave the house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders passed under the Act of 2007 cannot render the orders passed under the Act of 2005 irrelevant. It held that the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the Act of 2005 cannot be used for cross purposes, one annihilating the other.
Issues: The main issue was whether the orders passed under the Act of 2007 could nullify the orders passed under the Act of 2005, and whether the house in question was a 'shared household' under the Act of 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Major Harmohinder Singh's case and Suman's case to establish that the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the Act of 2005 cannot be used for cross purposes, and that the determination of whether the house in question was a 'shared household' was yet to be decided.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 22.01.2015.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
The petitioner was a bachelor girl when she was married to respondent No. 7 on 25.03.2014, who had a daughter, aged about 14 years, and a son of 8 years from his first marriage. The petitioner was a Teacher in a private school at Panchkula. She was relieved from her job on 04.02.2015 because she did not qualify the Teachers Eligibility Test. From the date of her marriage, she has been living in her matrimonial home bearing House No. 1512, First Floor, PUSHPAC Society, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh along with her husband, two children, mother-in-law and father-in-law, who are also arrayed as respondents No. 5 and 6 in this petition.
2. The petitioner was allegedly tormented by respondents No. 5 to 7 for bringing less dowry and was deprived her of basic needs, therefore, she filed a complaint on 07.07.2014, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2005"). She also filed an application on the same day under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 for interim relief. The application was contested by respondents No. 5 to 7 with their separate replies. The interim application filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh on 20.08.2014, restraining respondents No. 5 to 7 to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner of one bedroom along with attached toilet, bathroom and store, shown in red colour in the site plan of House No. 1512, First Floor, PUSHPAC Society, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh. This relief was granted under Section 19 of the Act of 2005 but the prayer made for monetary compensation under Section 20 of the Act of 2005 was declined. In the end, copy of the order was sent to the concerned Station House Officer as well as to the Protection Officer for immediate compliance.
3. It is alleged that since the petitioner was harassed by respondents No. 5 to 7 as they were interfering in her peaceful possession of the portion of the aforesaid house, therefore, she filed an application under Section 31 of the Act of 2005 for violating the order dated 20.08.2014 and also brought it to the notice of the SSP, Chandigarh through a complaint dated 06.01.2015. It is also averred that before the order dated 20.08.2014 could have been passed, respondents No. 5 and 6 filed an application dated 14.07.2014 to the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh under Sections 21 and 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2007"), levelling allegations against the petitioner and alleging that they had disowned their son and daughter-in-law and had attended their marriage only because of a social obligation. In the said application, only the petitioner was made a party, though respondent No. 7 was also alleged to have been disowned by respondents No. 5 and 6. The said application has been allowed by the District Magistrate, UT, Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 22.01.2015. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 22.01.2015.
4. After notice, reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 5 and 6 separately and the petitioner has also filed replication to the reply filed by respondents No. 5 and 6.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cross-case filed by respondents No. 5 and 6 under the Act of 2007 and the order passed therein cannot make the order passed under the Act of 2005 redundant/irrelevant. In this regard, he has referred to a decision of this Court rendered by the Single Bench in the case of Major Harmohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 176 PLR 488, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1588 of 2014 titled as "Major Harmohinder Singh (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab and others", decided on 14.10.2014.
6. On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 5 and 6 has submitted that since respondent No. 7 has taken two r
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
